> Cork is licensed under Commons Clause.
> This means that Cork open-source
even though the very FAQ for the Commons Clause asserts otherwise [2]:
> Is this “Open Source”?
> “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is stewarded by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.”
The Commons Clause bans selling of the software and is written in a way that allows the copyright holder to add more restrictions [2]. Cork does add more restrictions [1]:
> This means that Cork open-source and you can do whatever you want with Cork's source, like modifying it, contributing to it etc., but you can't sell or distribute Cork or modified versions of it.
> Moreover, you can’t distribute compiled versions of Cork without consulting me first. Compiling versions for your personal use is fine.
Although, I think it's worth pointing out that Cakebrew hasn't been actively maintained in 3 years and has never supported Casks. Cork on the other hand is actively developed and supports Casks, but we think the interface and user experience are not the best. For what we've seen so far Brewer X mostly appeals someone who can't get along with poorly designed UIs just to use a free tool.
I feel like people here likely aren't willing to pay for UIs on top of ffmpeg, brew, git, etc.
Especially with open source versions:
https://github.com/buresdv/Cork https://github.com/brunophilipe/Cakebrew
Just my take- could be totally wrong / have a poor perception of who uses HN these days.